MyBroadband Journalist

Instead of giving Eskom a bailout to cover its R419-billion debt, a cheaper and more sustainable solution is to create a rebate or incentivised photovoltaic solar programme for residential electricity consumers.

“You can implement that within six months and have no more load-shedding,” Rubicon sales director Greg Blandford told MyBroadband.

True, never mind that subsidizing solar doesn't do anything to the debt that still has to be paid. Even if government take it over in addition to subsidies it'd be counter their developmental goal iow, jobs would be lost and they can't have that.

Executive Member

This article is definitely biased , but the facts remain Eskom is not sustainable and will just get worse as time goes by , 40 Billion dollars in dept and looks like another 20 billion to fix what is wrong at the utility .
Solar is inevitable as far as i am concerned as we will not be able to afford the price asked by Eskom for electricity in the very near future .

Senior Member

Never going to happen .
Less corruption possible.
Too many jobs would be lost and Escom will lose its relevance in this market.
Not that it is doing a good job at this point in time.
If Escom is selling at 80c/kwhr and we are paying R2/kwhr to the municipalities what are the doing with the money besides squandering and stealing.

Executive Member

This article is definitely biased , but the facts remain Eskom is not sustainable and will just get worse as time goes by , 40 Billion dollars in dept and looks like another 20 billion to fix what is wrong at the utility .
Solar is inevitable as far as i am concerned as we will not be able to afford the price asked by Eskom for electricity in the very near future .

I agree on both points. My issue is that solar power should be done at large scale, and based in the Kalahari, and where the sun shines regularly, not in CT, Jhb or coastal areas. Also, concentrated solar power gives better load balancing than PV panels.

Expert Member

It's a damn good idea but remember that you have to get that half witted, corrupt government of ours to buy into the scheme, and if they cannot exploit the system to benefit their greedy, extravagant ways and lifestyles, that just ain't gonna happen.

Expert Member

True, never mind that subsidizing solar doesn't do anything to the debt that still has to be paid. Even if government take it over in addition to subsidies it'd be counter their developmental goal iow, jobs would be lost and they can't have that.

King of de Jungle

1) The system basically has to be replaced every ten years (in an optimum scenario).
2) It takes more income away from Eskom and local municipalities thereby further endangering their economic viability.
3) If it incorporates a battry backup system, then it can take up some space and also increases insurance risk due to possible fire risk.
4) Theft of solar panels and electrical equipment is a high possibility in South Africa
5) Governments around the world have shown a higher propensity to tax such installations (due to decreased income) rather than subsidise such installations. In fact, Cape Town is trying to do this very thing, but requiring registration and licensing.
6) Etc.

Nothing stopping a company from deploying and charging users per kWh used as done in US market. Hell since Gauteng gets so much sun and has a LOT of estates you could make a fortune on just that.. Economies of scale with essentially group owners and large scale deployment. After 4-5, with monitoring systems likely show big profit. Just is capital intensive

Karmic Sangoma

Instead of giving Eskom a bailout to cover its R419-billion debt, a cheaper and more sustainable solution is to create a rebate or incentivised photovoltaic solar programme for residential electricity consumers.

“You can implement that within six months and have no more load-shedding,” Rubicon sales director Greg Blandford told MyBroadband.

Executive Member

Helped design a house in Montagu in 2012 using 100% solar. Plans were held up 14 months as municipality was told by Eskom to hold off on approval since there would have been no electricity connection

Owner went to see Eskom in Worcester and was given a variety of excuses why the idea would not work. He was told that "we do not like the idea that you appear not to be supporting us". He could not get a straight answer to the question that Eskom were trying to compel him to use Eskom power. The compromise at the end was to provide a service up to the boundary, but not connect it

City of Cape Town not much different. Fellow in Scarborough has gone off the grid and is harassed by City officials. They turned down his registration on the grounds that there is no earth leakage on some portions of the installation which are not usually included in a mains supplied house

Well-Known Member

Doesn't matter which way you look at it, us citizens are well and truly f@ked, when we try various ways to survive in this corrupt country we live in. The government and our municipality for that matter will eventally find a way to suck even more of our hard earned cash, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Going off grid is unlikely to let you off the Eskom debt hook. It is very likely that given government's refusal to make the hard decisions to make Eskom viable, i.e., reducing headcount, at least some of that debt is going to end being for the taxpayer.